New Injunctions Granted Against HHS Mandate

CARL BUNDERSON

New Injunctions Granted Against HHS Mandate | Daily News | NCRegister.com Print Edition: January 27, 2013 Sign-up for our E-letter! Donate Archives Blogs Store Resources Advertise Jobs Radio Subscribe Make This My Homepage Resources Arts & Entertainment Books Commentary Culture of Life Education In Person News Opinion Sunday Guides Travel Vatican Dan Burke Edward Pentin Mark Shea Matthew Warner Jimmy Akin Matt & Pat Archbold Simcha Fisher Tito Edwards Jennifer Fulwiler Steven D. Greydanus Tim Drake Tom Wehner Our Latest Show About the Show About the Register Donate Subscribe Stations Schedule Other EWTN Shows Advertising Overview Editorial Calendar Order Web Ad Order Print Ad Print Article | Email Article | Write To Us Daily News Daily News New Injunctions Granted Against HHS Mandate (295) Two federal appeals courts grant preliminary injunctions protecting the religious liberty of for-profit plaintiffs. Tweet by CARL BUNDERSON/EWTN NEWS 02/07/2013 Comment WASHINGTON — Two federal appeals courts have become the latest to grant preliminary injunctions protecting the religious liberty of for-profit plaintiffs from the demands of the federal contraception mandate. “Freedom is not the government’s to give and take away when it pleases,” said Alliance Defending Freedom counsel Matt Bowman in response to one of the decisions. “The court did the right thing in issuing its order, and we are confident that this unconstitutional mandate’s days are numbered,” he continued. Alliance Defending Freedom is representing numerous plaintiffs in lawsuits challenging the controversial contraception mandate, which requires employers to offer health insurance covering contraception, sterilization and some drugs that can cause early abortions. More than 130 individuals and organizations have sued over the mandate, arguing that it violates their right to religious freedom. Currently, 11 of 14 for-profit plaintiffs have been granted injunctions blocking the mandate. Many non-profit plaintiffs have had their suits set aside while the federal government develops a proposal that it claims will protect their religious rights. On Feb. 1, the 8th Circuit appeals court found that the case brought by medical manufacturer and retailer Annex Medical, Inc., has a “sufficient likelihood of success on the merits,” citing the same court’s November decision granting an injunction to another for-profit business, O’Brien Industrial Holdings. The owner of Annex Medical is a Catholic, and argued that his religious beliefs “compel him to provide for the physical health” of his employees, but that the contraception mandate has made it impossible for him to purchase a health insurance plan for his employees without “violating his religious beliefs.” Bowman welcomed the decision, saying, “Americans have the God-given freedom to live and do business according to their faith. Honoring God is not just important within the four walls of a church; it is important every day, in all areas of life, including in our work.” A similar decision was reached by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit regarding Grote Industries, an Indiana-based vehicle lighting manufacturer. The Grote family is also Catholic, and its members run their business “in accordance with the precepts of their faith.” They argued that the mandate violates their rights under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. The Obama administration argued that the burden its mandate puts on people of faith is minimal, a claim that the court said “obscure(s) the substance of the religious-liberty violation asserted here.” The court issued Grote Industries an injunction on Jan. 30 because it believes the company has a “reasonable likelihood of success” on the basis of their argument, and that “they will suffer irreparable harm absent an injunction ... and the balance of harms tips in their favor.” Of the three judges on the 7th Circuit appeals panel, Ilana Rovner dissented from the majority decision. Rovner argued that corporations, not their owners, are obliged to provide contraceptive coverage by the mandate. She said that because Grote Industries is not “organized expressly to pursue religious ends,” it has no “religious interests or rights.” Bowman countered this argument, saying that “forcing employers to surrender their faith in order to earn a living is unprecedented, unnecessary, and unconstitutional.” Mandate Accommodation On Feb. 1, the federal government announ.......